Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition have drawn much attention in recent years, with high-profile studies frequently reporting extremely high (e.g., > 8) correlations between behavioral and self-report measures of personality or emotion and measures of brain activation. We show that these correlations often exceed what is statistically possible assuming the (evidently rather limited) reliability of both fMRI and personality/emotion measures. The implausibly high correlations are all the more puzzling because method sections rarely contain sufficient detail to ascertain how these correlations were obtained. We surveyed authors of 54 articles that reported findings of this kind to determine a few details on how these correlations were computed. More than half acknowledged using a strategy that computes separate correlations for individual voxels, and reports means of just the subset of voxels exceeding chosen thresholds. We show how this non-independent analysis grossly inflates correlations, while yielding reassuring-looking scattergrams. This analysis technique was used to obtain the vast majority of the implausibly high correlations in our survey sample. In addition, we argue that other analysis problems likely created entirely spurious correlations in some cases. We outline how the data from these studies could be reanalyzed with unbiased methods to provide the field with accurate estimates of the correlations in question. We urge authors to perform such reanalyses and to correct the scientific record. (Contains 19 footnotes, 6 figures and 1 table.) [This article was printed in the in-press version of: "Perspectives on Psychological Science" (May 2009). Its contents may differ from the final published version.]

We are grateful to the commentators for providing many stimulating and valuable observations. The main point of our article was to call attention to the overestimation of individual differences correlations in a subset of neuroimaging papers. To structure our discussion of these comments, we list the main points from our paper, note where commentators have agreed or disagreed with each, and provide our own reactions to their comments. [This article was printed in the in-press version of: "Perspectives on Psychological Science" (May 2009). Its contents may differ from the final published version.]